THE GENUS PISSODEIS. 9 



with straight sutures; anterior coxae separatetl, but without groove 

 for beak; tarsal claws small. Tribe Pissodiiii. 



Niisslin (1905, p. 110): Beak with antennal insertion near the 

 middle. Subfamily Pissodini. 



RE VISIONAL NOTES. 

 GENERIC CHARACTERS. 



The anterior ventral margin of the prothorax is not slightly emargi- 

 nate in any of the species examined by the writer. The reference to 

 a dentate femur was based on the species of Ilylohius and Ililvpus. 

 With these exceptions, the original description applies very well to 

 all of the known species. 



SUBORDINAL AND FAMILY CHARACTERS. 



There has been considerable difference of opinion among systema- 

 tists as to whether the palpus should be referred to as 4-jointed or 

 3-jointed. 



It is evident to the writer that the lateral segment of the maxilla, 

 which has been mistaken for the basal joint of the palpus, is ho- 

 mologous with the palpifer in other Coleoptera and orders of insects, 

 and it would seem, therefore, that the rigid, 3-jointed palpi should 

 be recognized as one of the important characters to distinguish the 

 true Rhynchophora from the other Coleoptera. It would remove the 

 Anthribidse and some other groups which, on account of the absence 

 of gular sutures, have been placed with the Rhynchophora, but the 

 writer is inclined to agree with some recent authors that these really 

 do not belong in the Rhynchophora. In representatives of the 

 Curculionidse, Scolytidse, and several other families examined by the 

 writer, the maxillary palpus is distinctly 3-jointed. In some, as in 

 Pissodes, the palpifer closely resembles a basal joint of the palpus, 

 but it joins the stipes and the apex does not extend beyond the base 

 of the galea. Therefore it can not belong to the palpus, but is the 

 part of the body of the maxilla to which the palpus is attached, 

 designated as the palpifer. 



ABDOMINAL SEGMENTS. 



The abdominal tergites 7 and 8 have been referred to by various 

 authors as the pygidium, propygidium, divided pygidium, etc. 

 Indeed, the terms "pygidium" and "propygidium" have been 

 extensively used in systematic entomology, and there is a very 

 general lack of uniformity in their application to the apical or sub- 

 apical tergite without regard to their numerical relation. There 

 seems to be serious objection to this general ap])lication of these 

 terms in classification, from the fact that in comparative anatomy 



